is this it? Why can´t we better than this, first her kids then her husband. Who cares and why is this important? Can we please get back to the issues? This kind of stupid whipping will just make her more popular and a victim. Why aren´t sticking to the issues enough?

Posted at September 2, 2008 4:53 PM in response to Todd Palin Was Registered Member of Alaska Independence Party Until 2002

Agree with most of what you write, but calling someone a lier is not exactly positive. He implies it all the time and even more so when he was behind. Fine with me - that´t politics, but represent it as anything else. Why not just talk about what he is going to do. That would be refreshing.

Posted at May 6, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Big difference?

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com - Washington Post

Posted at March 21, 2008 3:30 AM in response to Asked Whether Advisers Are Pushing Wright Story, Hillary Demurs

I agree, no allegation of criminal activity has been made against Obama.

What troubles me is his admitted lack of judgement on this issue.

I am also troubled by his uncharacteristic lawyer speak at the news conference yesterday - "No allegations" was the answer he gave instead of "done nothing illegal".

Posted at March 4, 2008 12:54 AM in response to Obama and Rezko: TPM's Timeline

That is just not true. Here are the quotes from Obama - Is this the high road and new politics?

Obama campaign accuses Hillary of ‘incredible distortions.’ [USA Today, 1/22/08]

Obama campaign: ‘people have heard a lot of things that just aren’t true from the mouth of the First Lady, from the mouth of the former President, from the mouth of the campaign.’ [Politico, 1/21/08]

Obama accused Hillary of 'not being straight' with the American people on many issues. Sen. Obama: "Hillary's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance. But this is yet another issue where she is not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance." [AP, 11/25/07]

Obama called Hillary 'disingenuous.' Sen. Obama: “Her response was certainly inadequate…She can release these papers…I think she was being disingenuous.” [Newsweek, 11/12/07]

Obama told reporters to ask Hillary 'the difference between disingenuous and dishonest.' Q: “What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?” Obama: “You'll have to ask her.” [Newsweek, 11/3/07]

Posted at March 3, 2008 1:30 PM in response to New Hillary Ad Hits Obama's "Judgment"

BTW Rockefeller read the NIE and voted to authorize Bush´s war.

So here we have Rockefeller vouching for Obama´s judgement when he has none according to Obama´s own assertion that if you voted for the war you don´t have judgement when it counts.

What a tangled web we weave...

Posted at March 3, 2008 1:22 PM in response to New Hillary Ad Hits Obama's "Judgment"

I pointed out that judgement on an important issue be it personal or with global consequences is a measure I think is interesting to look at especially in the absence more evidence.

Obama has admitted poor judgement and I never said Clinton showed good judgement on the Irag war vote .

I simply was questioning Obama´s assertion that he has better judgement than Clinton.

And now to the facts:
1) The investigation of Rezko´s real estate dealings was public knowledge at least 6 months before the Obamas bought their first house. Obama has admitted that it was poor judgement. (boneheaded).
2) Many democratic senators did read the NIE and still gave Bush authorization to go to war.

Posted at March 2, 2008 3:24 PM in response to Game On! Obama And Hillary To Trade Blows Over National Security In Speeches Today

Given the brevity of Obama´s record and the fact that he has primarily held legislative positions while serving in public, I think it appropriate to look at the decisions he has made when it was him alone.

For many of us one of the biggest decisions we will make in life is buying a house. Here Obama admits that he did not show good judgement.

I give him points for honesty when he says it was boneheaded, but he did buy a house together with a suspected corrupt backroom operator, and has been less than truthful as the press uncovers the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxyPBmZE69s&NR=1

Posted at March 2, 2008 6:09 AM in response to Game On! Obama And Hillary To Trade Blows Over National Security In Speeches Today

Good to hear, but your candidate is doubtful that you will.

Posted at March 1, 2008 6:45 PM in response to Is Press Unfair To Hillary? New York Times Weighs In...

If what you are saying than why hasn´t the press been harder on Obama since winning Virginia which made him the front runner?

Posted at March 1, 2008 6:28 PM in response to Is Press Unfair To Hillary? New York Times Weighs In...